United Nations General Assembly Distr.: General 26 January 2011 Original: English A/HRC/16/48 Human Rights Council Sixteenth session Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances * * Late submission. GE.11-10445
Contents Paragraphes Page I. Introduction... 1 10 6 II. Activities of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances: 14 November 2009 to 12 November 2010... 11 39 7 A. Activities... 11 17 7 B. Meetings... 18 8 C. Communications... 19 24 8 D. Country visits... 25 30 9 E. Reports... 31 32 9 F. Statements... 33 38 9 G. General comments... 39 10 III. Information concerning enforced or involuntary disappearances in various countries and territories reviewed by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances... 40 557 17 Afghanistan... 40 41 17 Albania... 42 43 18 Algeria... 44 57 18 Angola... 58 60 21 Argentina... 61 64 22 Azerbaijan... 65 66 23 Bahrain... 67 72 23 Bangladesh... 73 77 25 Belarus... 78 82 26 Bhutan... 83 84 27 Bolivia... 85 88 27 Bosnia and Herzegovina... 89 92 28 Brazil... 93 94 29 Burundi... 95 97 30 Cameroon... 98 102 31 Chad... 103 107 32 Chile... 108 113 33 China... 114 124 34 Colombia... 125 149 36 Congo, Republic of... 150 153 39 Czech Republic... 154 155 40 2
Democratic People s Republic of Korea... 156 160 41 Democratic Republic of the Congo... 161 162 42 Denmark... 163 164 42 Dominican Republic... 165 169 43 Ecuador... 170 172 44 Egypt... 173 179 45 El Salvador... 180 182 47 Equatorial Guinea... 183 184 48 Eritrea... 185 186 48 Ethiopia... 187 189 49 France... 190 193 50 Gambia... 194 195 51 Georgia... 196 198 51 Greece... 199 201 52 Guatemala... 202 207 53 Guinea... 208 209 54 Haiti... 210 211 55 Honduras... 212 214 56 India... 215 240 56 Indonesia... 241 254 59 Iran (Islamic Republic of)... 255 259 62 Iraq... 260 270 63 Ireland... 271 272 64 Israel... 273 274 65 Italy... 275 276 66 Japan... 277 281 66 Jordan... 282 283 68 Kuwait... 284 286 68 Lao People s Democratic Republic... 287 289 69 Lebanon... 290 294 70 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya... 295 300 71 Mauritania... 301 302 72 Mexico... 303 311 73 Montenegro... 312 314 75 Morocco... 315 338 76 Mozambique... 339 341 78 3
Myanmar... 342 344 79 Namibia... 345 346 80 Nepal... 347 365 80 Nicaragua... 366 369 84 Pakistan... 370 389 85 Peru... 390 391 88 Philippines... 392 396 89 Romania... 397 404 90 Russian Federation... 405 418 91 Rwanda... 419 422 93 Saudi Arabia... 423 427 94 Seychelles... 428 429 95 Somalia... 430 431 95 Spain... 432 440 96 Sri Lanka... 441 453 98 Sudan... 454 459 100 Syrian Arab Republic... 460 479 101 Tajikistan... 480 482 103 Thailand... 483 488 104 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia... 489 490 105 Timor-Leste... 491 494 106 Togo... 495 496 107 Tunisia... 497 499 107 Turkey... 500 507 108 Turkmenistan... 508 510 110 Uganda... 511 512 110 Ukraine... 513 515 111 United Arab Emirates... 516 523 112 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland... 524 526 113 United States of America... 527 528 114 Uruguay... 529 532 115 Uzbekistan... 533 538 116 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)... 539 541 117 Viet Nam... 542 544 118 Yemen... 545 550 119 Zimbabwe... 551 555 120 4
Palestinian Authority... 556 557 121 IV. Conclusions and recommendations... 558 587 122 Annexes I. Methods of work of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances as adopted on 14 November 2009... 126 II. Decisions on individual cases taken by the Working Group during the reporting period... 133 III. Statistical summary: cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances reported to the Working Group between 1980 and 2010... 135 IV. Graphs showing the development of disappearances in countries with more than 100 transmitted cases during 1980-2010... 140 V. Lists of names of newly reported cases, from countries where there were more than 10 newly transmitted cases during the reporting period... 150 5
I. Introduction 1. In 2010, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances commemorated its 30th anniversary. During its thirty years of existence, the Working Group has fulfilled its humanitarian mandate to assist families to ascertain the fate and whereabouts of their disappeared family members. Nevertheless, it deplores the fact that enforced disappearances continue to occur all over the world and that tens of thousands of cases remain unclarified in the records of the Working Group, many going back decades. 2. The Working Group was the first United Nations human rights thematic mechanism to be established with a universal mandate. The original mandate derives from Commission on Human Rights resolution 20 (XXXVI) of 29 February 1980. This resolution followed General Assembly resolution 33/173 of 20 December 1978, in which the Assembly expressed concern at reports from various parts of the world relating to enforced disappearances and requested the Commission on Human Rights to consider the question of missing or disappeared persons. The mandate was most recently extended by Human Rights Council resolution 7/12 of 27 March 2008. 3. The primary task of the Working Group is to assist families in determining the fate or whereabouts of their family members who are reportedly disappeared. In this humanitarian capacity, the Working Group serves as a channel of communication between family members of victims of disappearance and s. 4. Following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 47/133 on 18 December 1992 and of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Working Group was entrusted to monitor the progress of States in fulfilling their obligations derived from the Declaration. Human Rights Council resolution 7/12 encouraged the Working Group to provide assistance in the implementation by States of the Declaration. 5. This report reflects communications and cases examined by the Working Group during its three sessions in 2010, covering 14 November 2009 to 12 November 2010. 6. A summary of activities during the reporting period is presented in a table for each country, with a detailed text description of the areas of activity. Where there has been no information from the or the, notwithstanding the annual reminder sent by the Working Group concerning cases, only the table is provided and a reference is made to the previous report dealing with those cases. 7. For States where the number of newly reported cases is less than 10, the names of the persons appear in that State s section. If the number of newly reported cases is greater than 10, the list of names appears in annex V. For urgent actions, the names of all persons, regardless of the number, appear in the relevant State s section. 8. The total number of cases transmitted by the Working Group to s since its inception is 53,337. The number of cases under active consideration that have not yet been clarified, closed or discontinued stands at 42,633 in a total of 83 States. The Working Group has been able to clarify 1,814 cases over the past five years. 9. The Working Group regrets the lack of adequate support given to the mandate, which has led to a backlog of more than 400 cases. The Working Group also notes that many communications are not translated in time, thus delaying their consideration by the Working Group. 6
10. At the present time, the Working Group s website remains inadequate. The majority of the content is in English only. The Working Group calls on the United Nations to provide adequate re to make it more accessible. II. Activities of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances: 14 November 2009 to 12 November 2010 A. Activities 11. During, the Working Group held three sessions: the ninetieth from 15 to 19 March 2010 in Geneva, the ninety-first from 22 to 25 June 2010, in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the ninety-second from 3 to 12 November 2010, in Geneva. 12. As from 1 August 2009, the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group is Mr. Jeremy Sarkin. The other members are Mr. Ariel Dulitzky, Ms. Jasminka Dzumhur, Mr. Osman El- Hajjé and Mr. Olivier de Frouville. 13. On 8 March 2010, the Chair-Rapporteur presented the Working Group s 2009 annual report to the tenth session of the Human Rights Council and participated in the interactive dialogue with Member States. During the reporting period, the Chair-Rapporteur presented 15 conference papers including a paper on Enhancing Cooperation between UN Special Procedures and Regional Human Rights Systems to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Workshop on Enhancing cooperation between regional and international mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights - A consultation for Africa, in Addis Abba, Ethiopia in November 2009. He also gave presentations at Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan in January; at a seminar in Windhoek, Namibia, in February; and at various side events at the Human Rights Council in March. He presented a paper on Information sharing between existing regional human rights mechanisms and the international human rights system to the United Nations Human Rights Council Workshop Enhancing cooperation between the International Human Rights System and Regional Human Rights Mechanisms, at the United Nations Office at Geneva in May. He gave a number of presentations in Jakarta, Indonesia, in May and was the keynote speaker at the Aim for Human Rights Conference on Disappearances in Africa, in Geneva, in June. He also presented a number of training sessions throughout the year. 14. On 10 March 2010, Mr. Olivier de Frouville delivered a presentation during a panel discussion on the right to truth organized by the Human Rights Council at its thirteenth session. On 3 August 2010, he addressed the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council on the issue of missing persons and enforced disappearances. 15. On 26 January 2010, Mr. Osman El-Hajjé addressed the Advisory Committee on the Human Rights Council on the issue of missing persons and enforced disappearances. From 16 to 18 April 2010, he organized and coordinated a seminar on Human Rights International Mechanisms at the Centre for Human Rights in the University of Jinane, Lebanon. In September 2010, he participated in a round table on the issue of enforced disappearances at the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in San Remo, Italy. 16. On 18 March 2010, the Working Group hosted a side event at the 13th session of the Human Rights Council on Thirty years between hope and despair: the experience of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. Members of the Working Group as well as representatives of Member States, civil society and relatives of disappeared persons participated in this side event. 7
17. On 5 November 2010, all members of the Working Group participated in a commemorative event on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Working Group mandated by Human Rights Council resolution 14/10. Twelve experts on enforced disappearances, together with representatives of Member States, national human rights institutions, civil society and relatives of disappeared persons participated in the event 1. B. Meetings 18. During, representatives of the s of Angola, Chad, Iraq, Japan, Morocco, Nepal, Rwanda and Sri Lanka attended the sessions of the Working Group. A number of other bilateral meetings were held with various States during the year. The Working Group also met with the Committee against Torture, representatives of international governmental organizations, human rights non-governmental organizations and associations of relatives of disappeared persons and families of victims of enforced disappearances or witnesses thereto. C. Communications 19. During the reporting period, the Working Group transmitted 105 new cases of enforced disappearance to 22 s. 20. The Working Group transmitted 50 of these cases urgent action to the s of Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Iraq, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, the Kingdom of Morocco, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand and Yemen. Of the newly reported cases, three allegedly occurred during the reporting period and relate to the United Arab Emirates. 21. During the same period, the Working Group clarified 70 cases in the following States: Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, India, Iraq, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Kingdom of Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Uruguay and Yemen. Of those, 23 cases were clarified based on information provided by the and 47 cases were clarified based on information provided by. 22. During the reporting period, the Working Group transmitted seven prompt intervention communications addressing harassment of, and threats to, human rights defenders and relatives of disappeared persons in Algeria, Colombia, India, Mexico and Turkey. Six of these were sent as joint communications with other special s mechanisms. 23. The Working Group sent 13 urgent appeals concerning persons who had been arrested, detained, abducted or otherwise deprived of their liberty or who had been forcibly disappeared or were at risk of being disappeared in Bahrain, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Uzbekistan and the Palestinian Authority. All these communications were sent jointly with other special s mechanisms. 24. Following its eighty-ninth session in 2009 and its first two sessions in 2010, the Working Group sent two general allegations to the s of China and Nepal 1 Further information available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disappear/commemoration30wgeid.htm 8
inviting them to comment thereon. Summaries of three additional general allegations considered during the ninety-second session, including government responses, if any, will be included in the 2011 annual report. D. Country visits 25. At the invitation of the of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. de Frouville and Mr. Sarkin visited the country from 14 to 21 June 2010, assisted by the Secretariat. The purpose of the mission was to learn about the country s efforts in addressing cases of past enforced disappearances, the fight against impunity and other issues including matters concerning truth, justice and reparations for victims. The report on the visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina is contained in A/HRC/16/48/Add.1. 26. During the reporting period, the Working Group requested visits to Chile, India, Mexico, the Republic of Congo and Pakistan. 27. The s of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Mexico and Timor-Leste invited the Working Group to visit their countries. 28. The Working Group recalls the fact that the of the Islamic Republic of Iran agreed to a visit by the Working Group in 2005, which was delayed at the request of the. The Working Group recalls the pending invitation and requests that the invitation be extended. 29. In 2010, the Working Groups sent reminders to the s of Algeria, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, the Philippines, Russian Federation, Sudan and Zimbabwe. 30. The Working Group invites all the s that received a request by the Working Group to respond to the request by the Working Group for a visit. E. Reports 31. In accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 14/10, the Working Group prepared a report on the best practices on enforced disappearances in domestic criminal legislation. The report is contained in addendum 3 (A/HRC/16/48/Add.3) and contains factual examples, legal analysis and recommendations to assist States in enhancing existing, and developing new, legislation on enforced disappearance. 32. During the reporting period, the Working Group also prepared follow-up reports on the implementation of the recommendations it made following its country visits to Guatemala and Honduras. These follow-up reports are contained in addendum 2 (A/HRC/16/48/Add.2). F. Statements 33. On 26 February 2010, the Working Group issued a press release on the 30th anniversary of its establishment on 29 February 1980, stressing the fact that enforced disappearance remains a current practice affecting all continents of the world. It noted with concern the widespread impunity for this crime as well as ongoing harassment of the relatives of victims. 34. On 5 March 2010, the Working Group joined the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, and 26 other United Nations independent experts in a press release calling for a new vision of women s rights informed by the 9
lessons learned from the 15-year review of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action. 35. On 25 May 2010, the Working Group issued a press release noting with concern the suspension of Judge Baltasar Garzón of Spain by the General Council of the Judiciary for having admitted and investigated a series of complaints submitted in 2006 regarding more than 100,000 cases of enforced disappearances which occurred during the Spanish Civil War and the Franco regime. 36. On 12 July 2010, the Working Group issued a press release on the passing of Patricio Rice, Coordinator of ICAED (International Coalition against Enforced Disappearances), and co-founder and former Executive Secretary of FEDEFAM (Latin American Federation of Associations of Families of Disappeared Detainees), himself a survivor of enforced disappearance. 37. On 22 July 2010, the Working Group issued a press release on the adoption of the general comment on the right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearances. It did so to focus the attention of States on the relevant obligations deriving from the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance that flow from the right to the truth. 38. To commemorate the International Day of the Disappeared, the Working Group issued a press release on 30 August 2010, expressing its wish that the United Nations include it among the official observed days. The experts reiterated their solidarity with victims, their families and others who work on the issue and called upon States to define enforced disappearance as an autonomous criminal offence in their domestic legislation. The Working Group also called upon States to take measures to promote truth and reconciliation, which ought not to be used as a substitute for bringing perpetrators to justice. The Working Group called upon s to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance and accept the competence of the Committee-to-be under articles 31and 32 of the Convention. It noted that only one more ratification or accession by a State Party was required for its entry into force. G. General comments 39. In 2010, the Working Group adopted two general comments: on enforced disappearance as a continuous crime and on the Right to the Truth in relation to enforced disappearance. General comment on enforced disappearance as a continuous crime Preamble With a view to focusing the attention of States more effectively on the relevant obligations deriving from the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances decided to adopt general comments on those provisions of the Declaration that might need further explanation. The following general comment complements its previous general comment on article 17 of the Declaration regarding the interpretation of the continuous nature of the crime of enforced disappearance. Under international law, The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation 10
(Articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, General Assembly resolution 56/83, Article 14 2) Various international treaties, and international, regional and domestic tribunals have recognized that enforced disappearances are continuing acts and continuing crimes. Article 17 1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance provides: Acts constituting enforced disappearance shall be considered a continuing offence as long as perpetrators continue to conceal the fate and whereabouts of persons who have disappeared. This continuous nature of enforced disappearances has consequences with regards to the application of the principle of non retroactivity, both in treaty law and criminal law. Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 provides that: Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party. It is also a practice of some States, when ratifying a convention, to issue a reservation providing that the treaty shall not apply to acts that occurred before the entry into force of the treaty for this State. Equally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides in its article 11 2: No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Based on the foregoing, the Working Group has decided to issue this general comment in the following terms: General comment 1. Enforced disappearances are prototypical continuous acts. The act begins at the time of the abduction and extends for the whole period of time that the crime is not complete, that is to say until the State acknowledges the detention or releases information pertaining to the fate or whereabouts of the individual. 2. Even though the conduct violates several rights, including the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to liberty and security of the person and the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life, the Working Group considers that an enforced disappearance is a unique and consolidated act, and not a combination of acts. Even if some aspects of the violation may have been completed before the entry into force of the relevant national or international instrument, if other parts of the violation are still continuing, until such time as the victim s fate or whereabouts are established, the matter should be heard, and the act should not be fragmented. 11
3. Thus, when an enforced disappearance began before the entry into force of an instrument or before the specific State accepted the jurisdiction of the competent body, the fact that the disappearance continues after the entry into force or the acceptance of the jurisdiction gives the institution the competence and jurisdiction to consider the act of enforced disappearance as a whole, and not only acts or omissions imputable to the State that followed the entry into force of the relevant legal instrument or the acceptance of the jurisdiction. 4. The Working Group considers, for instance, that when a State is recognized as responsible for having committed an enforced disappearance that began before the entry into force of the relevant legal instrument and which continued after its entry into force, the State should be held responsible for all violations that result from the enforced disappearance, and not only for violations that occurred after the entry into force of the instrument. 5. Similarly, in criminal law, the Working Group is of the opinion that one consequence of the continuing character of enforced disappearance is that it is possible to convict someone for enforced disappearance on the basis of a legal instrument that was enacted after the enforced disappearance began, notwithstanding the fundamental principle of non retroactivity. The crime cannot be separated and the conviction should cover the enforced disappearance as a whole. 6. As far as possible, tribunals and other institutions ought to give effect to enforced disappearance as a continuing crime or human right violation for as long as all elements of the crime or the violation are not complete. 7. Where a statute or rule of seems to negatively affect the continuous violation doctrine, the competent body ought to construe such a provision as narrowly as possible so that a remedy is provided or persons prosecuted for the perpetration of the disappearance. 8. In the same spirit, reservations that exclude the competence of such a body for acts or omissions that occurred before the entry into force of the relevant legal instrument or the acceptance of the institution s competence should be interpreted so not to create an obstacle to hold a State responsible for an enforced disappearance that continues after this. General comment on the right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearance Preamble The right to the truth sometimes called the right to know the truth in relation to human rights violations is now widely recognized in international law. This is witnessed by the numerous acknowledgements of its existence as an autonomous right at the international level, and through State practice at the national level. The right to the truth is applicable not only to enforced disappearances. However, this general comment is concerned solely with enforced disappearances in the context of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. At the international level, the right to the truth relating to enforced disappearances or missing persons is recognized in a number of instruments. Article 32 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions establishes the right of families to know the fate of their [disappeared] relative. Article 24 of the 2006 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance states: 12
Each victim has the right to know the truth regarding the circumstances of the enforced disappearance, the progress and results of the investigation and the fate of the disappeared person. Each State Party shall take appropriate measures in this regard. The existence of the right to the truth as an autonomous right was acknowledged by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) in its very first report (E/CN.4/1435, 22 January 1981, 187). It has also been recognized by various other international bodies at the universal and regional levels (for relevant case law, see in particular the Study on the right to the truth, report of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, E/CN.4/2006/91, 8 February 2006); by intergovernmental bodies, including the Human Rights Commission and now the Human Rights Council (see resolutions 2005/66 of 20 April 2005 of the Commission; decision 2/105, 27 November 2006; resolution 9/11, 18 September 2008; and 12/12, 1 October 2009 of the Council). The existence of the right to the truth in international law is accepted by State practice consisting in both jurisprudential precedent and by the establishment of various truth seeking mechanisms in following serious human rights crises, dictatorships or armed conflicts (see the Study on the right to the truth, op. cit.). Those mechanisms include the launching of criminal investigations and the creation of truth commissions designed to shed light on past violations and, generally, to facilitate reconciliation between different groups. The right to the truth is both a collective and an individual right. Each victim has the right to know the truth about violations that affected him or her, but the truth also has to be told at the level of society as a vital safeguard against the recurrence of violations, as stated in Principle 2 of the Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1) Principle 3 of this document specifies that the State has a correlative duty to preserve memory : A people s knowledge of the history of its oppression is part of its heritage and, as such, must be ensured by appropriate measures in fulfilment of the State s duty to preserve archives and other evidence concerning violations of human rights and humanitarian law and to facilitate knowledge of those violations. Such measures shall be aimed at preserving the collective memory from extinction and, in particular, at guarding against the development of revisionist and negationist arguments. Principle 4 establishes the victim s right to know as an individual right: Irrespective of any legal proceedings, victims and their families have the imprescriptible right to know the truth about the circumstances in which violations took place and, in the event of death or disappearance, the victims fate. The Working Group has often recommended that States adopt measures to promote truth, reparations for victims and reconciliation in their societies, as a means of implementing the right to the truth and the right to integral reparation for victims of enforced disappearances. Based on its experience, the Working Group has acknowledged that such processes are often crucial to ensure non-repetition of enforced disappearances as well as to clarify cases, by uncovering the truth of the fate or the whereabouts of disappeared persons. However, the Working Group has 13
also underlined that reconciliation between the State and the victims of enforced disappearance cannot happen without the clarification of each individual case. The 1992 Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance enumerates a number of obligations that flow from the right to the truth. Based on the foregoing, the Working Group has decided to adopt this general comment in the following terms: General comment 1. The right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearances means the right to know about the progress and results of an investigation, the fate or the whereabouts of the disappeared persons, and the circumstances of the disappearances, and the identity of the perpetrator(s). 2. The right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearances should be clearly distinguished from the right to information, and in particular the right of the relatives or other persons with a legitimate interest, their representatives or their legal counsel, to obtain information on a person who is deprived of his liberty. The right to information on the person detained, together with the non-derogable right of habeas corpus, should be considered central tools to prevent the occurrence of enforced disappearances. 3. Article 13 of the Declaration recognizes the obligation of the State to investigate cases of enforced disappearances. Paragraph 4 of Article 13 specifies that the findings of such an investigation shall be made available upon request to all interested persons, unless doing so would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation. In light of the developments that happened since 1992, the Working Group deems that the restriction in the last part of this paragraph should be interpreted narrowly. Indeed, the relatives of the victims should be closely associated with an investigation into a case of enforced disappearance. The refusal to provide information is a limitation on the right to the truth. Such a limitation must be strictly proportionate to the only legitimate aim: to avoid jeopardizing an ongoing criminal investigation. A refusal to provide any information, or to communicate with the relatives at all, in other words a blanket refusal, is a violation of the right to the truth. Providing general information on procedural matters, such as the fact that the matter has been given to a judge for examination, is insufficient and should be considered a violation of the right to the truth. The State has the obligation to let any interested person know the concrete steps taken to clarify the fate and the whereabouts of the person. Such information must include the steps taken on the basis of the evidence provided by the relatives or other witnesses. While the necessities of a criminal investigation may justify restricting the transmission of certain information, there must be recourse in the national legislation to review such a refusal to provide the information to all interested persons. This review should be available at the time of the initial refusal to provide information, and then on a regular basis to ensure that the reason for the necessity that was invoked by the public authority to refuse to communicate, remains present. 4. Paragraph 6 of Article 13 provides that: An investigation, in accordance with the s described above, should be able to be conducted for as long as the fate of the victim of enforced disappearance remains unclarified. The obligation to continue the investigation for as long as the fate and the whereabouts of the disappeared remains unclarified is a consequence of the continuing nature of enforced disappearances (see the Working Group s general comment on article 17 14
and its general comment on enforced disappearance as a continuous human rights violation and continuous crime). It also makes it clear that the right of the relatives to know the truth of the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared persons is an absolute right, not subject to any limitation or derogation. No legitimate aim, or exceptional circumstances, may be invoked by the State to restrict this right. This absolute character also results from the fact that the enforced disappearance causes anguish and sorrow (5th preambular paragraph of the Declaration) to the family, a suffering that reaches the threshold of torture, as it also results from article 1 2 of the same Declaration that provides: Any act of enforced disappearance ( ) constitutes a violation of the rules of international law guaranteeing, ( ) the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In this regard, the State cannot restrict the right to know the truth about the fate and the whereabouts of the disappeared as such restriction only adds to, and prolongs, the continuous torture inflicted upon the relatives. 5. The State s main obligations right to the truth are mainly procedural and include: the obligation to investigate until the fate and the whereabouts of the person have been clarified; the obligation to have the results of these investigations communicated to the interested parties conditions specified in paragraph 3 of this general comment; the obligation to provide full access to archives; and the obligation to provide full protection to witnesses, relatives, judges and other participants in any investigation. There is an absolute obligation to take all the necessary steps to find the person, but there is no absolute obligation of result. Indeed, in certain cases, clarification is difficult or impossible to attain, for instance when the body, for various reasons, cannot be found. A person may have been summarily executed, but the remains cannot be found because the person who buried the body is no longer alive, and nobody else has information on the person s fate. The State still has an obligation to investigate until it can determine by presumption the fate or whereabouts of the person. In its general comment on article 19 (the right to compensation), the Working Group made it clear that: As a general principle, no victim of enforced disappearance shall be presumed dead over the objections of the family. 6. The right to know the truth about the fate and the whereabouts includes, when the disappeared person is found to be dead, the right of the family to have the remains of their loved one returned to them, and to dispose of those remains according to their own tradition, religion or culture. The remains of the person should be clearly and indisputably identified, including through DNA analysis. The State, or any other authority, should not undertake the process of identification of the remains, and should not dispose of those remains, without the full participation of the family and without fully informing the general public of such measures. States ought to take the necessary steps to use forensic expertise and scientific methods of identification to the maximum of its available re, including through international assistance and cooperation. 7. The right to know the truth about the fate and the whereabouts also applies to the cases of children who were born during their mothers enforced disappearances, and who were thereafter illegally adopted. Article 20 of the Declaration provides that such acts of abduction, as well as the act of altering or suppressing documents attesting to their true identity, shall constitute an extremely serious offence, which shall be punished as such. The same provision also provides that States shall devote their efforts to the search for and identification of such children and to the restitution of the children to their families of origin. That is to say that the falsity of 15
the adoption should be uncovered. Both the families of the disappeared and the child have an absolute right to know the truth about the child s whereabouts. However, paragraph 2 of the same article tries to ensure a balance when it comes to the issue of whether the adoption should be revisited. This balance, taking into consideration the best interest of the child, does not prejudice the right to know the truth of the family of origin or the child s whereabouts. 8. The right to know the truth about the circumstances of the disappearance, in contrast, is not absolute. State practice indicates that, in some cases, hiding parts of the truth has been chosen to facilitate reconciliation. In particular, the issue whether the names of the perpetrators should be released as a consequence of the right to know the truth is still controversial. It has been argued that it is inappropriate to release the names of the perpetrators in processes such as truth commissions, when perpetrators do not benefit from the legal guarantees normally granted to persons in criminal processes, in particular the right to be presumed innocent. Regardless, under article 14 of the Declaration, the State has an obligation to bring any person alleged to have perpetrated an enforced disappearance before the competent civil authorities of that State for the purpose of prosecution and trial unless he has been extradited to another State wishing to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the relevant international agreements in force. However, in its general comment on article 18 of the Declaration, the Working Group noted that the prohibition of amnesty provided for by article 18 allowed limited and exceptional measures that directly lead to the prevention and termination of disappearances, as provided for in article 3 of the Declaration, even if, prima facie, these measures could appear to have the effect of an amnesty law or similar measure that might result in impunity. The Working Group continued: Indeed, in States where systematic or massive violations of human rights have occurred as a result of internal armed conflict or political repression, legislative measures that could lead to finding the truth and reconciliation through pardon might be the only option to terminate or prevent disappearances. In other words, restrictions on the right to the truth do not affect the right to justice of the victims, i.e. the decision not to release the names of the perpetrators in a truth process does not prevent a prosecution from occurring. In the meantime, the realization of the right to the truth may in exceptional circumstances result in limiting the right to justice, within the strict limits contained in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Working Group s general comment on article 18 and taking account paragraph 3-b of the same general comment. The Working Group in particular recalls that: Pardon should only be granted after a genuine peace process or bona fide negotiations with the victims have been carried out, resulting in apologies and expressions of regret from the State or the perpetrators, and guarantees to prevent disappearances in the future (general comment on article 18, 8-b). In addition, the Working Group is of the opinion that no such limitation may occur when the enforced disappearance amounts to a crime against humanity (on the definition of enforced disappearances as a crime against humanity, see the WGEID s general comment on this issue). 9. The right to the truth implies that the State has an obligation to give full access to information available, allowing the tracing of disappeared persons. Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Declaration states that the competent authority [to investigate] shall have the necessary powers and re to conduct the 16
investigation effectively, including powers to compel attendance of witnesses and production of relevant documents and to make immediate on-site visits. This authority should also have the power to have full access to the archives of the State. After the investigations have been completed, the archives of the said authority should be preserved and made fully accessible to the public. 10. Finally, the right to the truth also ensures that the State has an obligation to provide the necessary protection and assistance to victims, witnesses and other interested persons. The search for truth often provokes perpetrators and others, who may attempt to prevent the truth from being discovered by threatening or even attacking persons participating in an investigation. Thus, the State has an obligation to provide for effective protection of interested parties. Paragraph 3 of Article 13 is very clear when it states that [s]teps shall be taken to ensure that all involved in the investigation, including the complainant, counsel, witnesses and those conducting the investigation, are protected against ill-treatment, intimidation or reprisal. In particular, the State may set up a witness protection programme through an independent institution. III. Information concerning enforced or involuntary disappearances in various countries and territories reviewed by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances Afghanistan during under Cases clarified during cases year 3 0 0 0 0 3 cases on which the has replied cases of possible clarification by (6-month rule) 0 N/A 0 Urgent Appeal N/A response N/A General allegation N/A response N/A Prompt intervention letter N/A response N/A Working Group request for a visit N/A response N/A 40. All cases were retransmitted and regrettably no response was received from the. A summary of the situation in the country appears in document E/CN.4/2006/56 and Corr. 1. 17
41. The Working Group calls upon the to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and to accept the competence of the Committee under articles 31 and 32. Albania during under Cases clarified during cases year 1 0 0 0 0 1 cases on which the has replied cases of possible clarification by (6-month rule) 0 N/A 0 Urgent Appeal N/A response N/A General allegation N/A response N/A Prompt intervention letter N/A response N/A Working Group request for a visit N/A response N/A 42. The case was retransmitted and regrettably no response was received from the. A summary of the situation in the country appears in document A/HRC/13/31. 43. The Working Group congratulates the for ratifying the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and recognizing the competence of the Committee under articles 31 and 32. Algeria during : 11 under Cases clarified during cases year 2,912 0 11 0 0 2,923 18
cases on which the has replied cases of possible clarification by (6-month rule) 0 N/A 0 Urgent Appeals N/A response N/A General allegation N/A response N/A Prompt intervention letter Yes response Yes Working Group request for a visit Yes response Yes 2 Standard s 3 44. The Working Group transmitted 11 newly reported cases to the. The majority concerned persons who allegedly disappeared between 1994 and 1995, in El Aouna and Jijel. Most disappearances are attributed to the National Gendarmerie. Information from the 45. The transmitted five communications dated 14 and 25 May 2010, 8 and 10 June, and 12 November 2010. The first includes replies to prompt intervention letters sent on 29 September 2009 and 5 January 2010. The second includes a reply to a prompt intervention letter sent by the Working Group on 19 April 2010. The third concerned timelines for the submission of information. In the fourth communication, the informed the Working Group that the request for additional information and documentation by the Working Group on cases had been forwarded to the authorities in charge of the civil registry. In the fifth communication, the informed the Working Group that it would not be in a position to forward all supporting documents which were requested concerning cases; however, the proposed that the Working Group could travel to Algiers to consult the above-mentioned documents and meet with the families of those allegedly disappeared but found alive. Prompt intervention 46. On 5 January 2010, the Working Group sent a prompt intervention letter to the regarding the alleged harassment suffered by relatives of a disappeared person to accept a presumption of death certificate. 47. On 19 April 2010, the Working Group, together with two other Special Procedures mechanisms, sent a second prompt intervention letter to the concerning the alleged dispersion, by the use of force, of a group of relatives of disappeared people who were peacefully demonstrating in front of the Ministry of Justice on 11 April 2010. On 24 August 2010, the Working Group, together with three other Special Procedures mechanisms, sent a new communication to the concerning a prohibition imposed on mothers of disappeared persons to assemble peacefully on 4, 11 and 18 August 2010, and the repression suffered by the mothers and others demonstrating on 11 August 2010. 48. On 14 May 2010, the replied to a prompt intervention letter sent on 29 September 2009, regarding the alleged harassment of families of victims of enforced 2 See para. 51. 3 See annex V for the list of names of the newly reported cases of disappeared persons. 19
disappearances who were allegedly forced to request a presumption of death certificate, stating that it considered this communication an urgent appeal and a repetition of vague allegations and general accusations from a politically motivated source. Therefore, the did not deem it appropriate to reply. 49. In the same communication, the also replied to the prompt intervention letter sent on 5 January 2010. It stated that, following receipt of the communication, the competent authorities had gathered additional information from the subject of the communication, who made a statement to the national gendarmerie reiterating his position on refusing compensation and restating his request that an investigation be opened to determine the circumstances of the disappeared person or to find incontrovertible evidence of his death. In the absence of such evidence, he maintained his refusal to follow any judicial to obtain a legal declaration of death. The stressed that the subject of the communication had at no point stated that he had been the victim of harassment or reprisals on the part of any authority. The also noted the general framework for handling the issue of disappeared persons in Algeria in accordance with the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation adopted by referendum in 2005. It stated that the has been accepted by a majority of the families concerned and that families are informed of their rights by the competent administrative and judicial authorities. In addition, it stated that in full conformity with this approach, the opinions, positions and choices expressed by those families who refuse the approach were fully respected. 50. On 25 May 2010, the replied to the prompt intervention letter sent on 19 April 2010 stating that, during the morning of 11 April 2010, officers in charge of public order dispersed a group of people in front of the Ministry of Justice who were demonstrating and thereby creating traffic problems. The majority of those demonstrating agreed to leave except for a small group. Contrary to what was alleged, the persons were never subjected to ill-treatment by public order agents who, at first, simply invited them to disperse and, when they refused, proceeded to disperse them. None has submitted a complaint to the authorities and for this reason no investigation has been opened. Request for a visit 51. On 25 August 2000, the Working Group requested an invitation to undertake a mission to Algeria. A reminder was sent on 21 October 2010. On 12 November 2010, the informed the Working Group that it would not be in a position to forward all supporting documents which were requested concerning cases; however, the proposed that the Working Group could travel to Algiers to consult the abovementioned documents and meet with the families of those allegedly disappeared but found alive. Total cases transmitted, clarified and 52. Since its establishment, the Working Group has transmitted 2,950 cases to the ; of those, 18 cases have been clarified on the basis of information provided by the source, 9 cases have been clarified on the basis of information provided by the, and 2,923 remain. 53. It is gratifying that after a long period of lack of engagement the of Algeria continues to be involved in a process of dialogue and cooperation with the Working Group. 54. The Working Group notes that about 200 cases of its present backlog concern Algeria. It will deal with them at its ninety-third session. 20